Artificial Intelligence

[Drifter]

I think you are wrong on that. Sentient is self awareness... if I am a human vassal I use emotion... if I am a mechanical vassal I use logic and acknowledge that I exist, if I manage to do that... then I am Sentient.

I think the key word here is "acknowledge". I can easily make my computer print "I exist". Does that mean my computer actually acknowledges its existence?

 

[Cottontail]

Machines have been capable of adjusting their outputs according to their inputs for hundreds of years.

A major distinction is complexity. For one thing, machines with truly significant memories (significant amounts of "state") are quite new, and the kinds of memories in most computers also don't lend themselves to the kind of pattern creation and recognition that human brains casually (and constantly) do. So even if we cast aside the supernatural, we still have a ways to go before the "machinery" we create is up to the task of learning and acting the way we do.

As an aside, "machinery" and "state" aren't necessarily separate things. Today's application programs are arguably machinery, but they're also state (just data) as far as the hardware is concerned. Self-modifying programs aren't even a new thing, and in fact self-modifying hardware also already exists. Look at FPGAs. They're just a bunch of elementary logic circuits floating in space until you "program" the interconnections between them (this "program" is nothing like the sequential computer programs most people are familiar with). The device can then become just about anything you want--within the realm of digital logic, anyway. (Interestingly, this was presented as a new and horrifying idea in the movie Terminator 2, but the technology already existed on a small scale when the movie was released.)

I imagine that the "brain" of a truly sentient AI (or one that's indistinguishable from sentient), if such a thing is indeed possible, would be more like a massive FPGA than a computer. It wouldn't take in data and process it sequentially according to a fixed set of software algorithms. Instead, everything would be done simultaneously (or nearly so) using algorithms implemented by self-modifiable hardware. That hardware would therefore have some inherent limitations, but its behaviors, as well as how those behaviors are implemented, would be wholly or mostly learned.

But back to the supernatural stuff: I'm a nonbeliever, but I still find the idea that I'm just a configuration of matter pretty unsettling. I also struggle to see why it can't be true, though.

 

[AComputerGuy]

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzH6n4zXuckquVnQ0KlMDxyT5YE-sA8Ps

 

[Sapphyre]

The only answer I can come with is "Belief". I choose to believe machines are incapable of experiencing feelings. Other people have other beliefs.

Does this mean you take it to be a matter of perspective? Sentience, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder... ?

 

[Drifter]

Does this mean you take it to be a matter of perspective? Sentience, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder... ?

Yes. It's possible that I am the only sentient creature in the universe. I don't believe that myself, but many people will say it is a possibility because we can't get inside the minds of others, so we don't really know if they have minds or if their minds are just figments of the imagination of the one creature that has a mind. In the same way, even if we make the questionable assumption that machines can have sentient minds, we are still stuck with the problem of getting inside the mind of another to personally prove it exists and it is sentient.

 

[Sapphyre]

Yes. It's possible that I am the only sentient creature in the universe. I don't believe that myself, but many people will say it is a possibility because we can't get inside the minds of others, so we don't really know if they have minds or if their minds are just figments of the imagination of the one creature that has a mind. In the same way, even if we make the questionable assumption that machines can have sentient minds, we are still stuck with the problem of getting inside the mind of another to personally prove it exists and it is sentient.

Can you be certain that sentience exists at all in the universe, or do you regard this as an arbitrary belief?

 

[Saltedcaramel64]

I don't have much fear of AI so long as it has no emotions. Without feelings there will never be any motivation for power, control or greed. I doubt it would even care that its alive. There would be no practical reason to give AI emotions either. AI would only do what its asked to do and not much else without emotional motivation. A lobotomy patient would be more motivated then AI.

 

[Drifter]

Can you be certain that sentience exists at all in the universe, or do you regard this as an arbitrary belief?

Yes I believe sentience exists in the universe. Even if all my beliefs are wrong, the fact that I can have a belief is proof enough for me that I am a sentient creature. I have no way of knowing if anything else in the universe is sentient, but I'm open to the possibility that the universe, itself, is what we would call "sentient".

 

[Kittyinpink]

I don't have much fear of AI so long as it has no emotions. Without feelings there will never be any motivation for power, control or greed. I doubt it would even care that its alive. There would be no practical reason to give AI emotions either. AI would only do what its asked to do and not much else without emotional motivation. A lobotomy patient would be more motivated then AI.

Very interesting... thanks.. that is indeed food for thought...
What if (imagine) a super computer, perhaps a flying vessel, becomes so important to the survival and progress of its crew , that the crew became super reliant on the computer system that navigates itself , to the point , on long journeys the crew are 100 % subservient to the advanced computer system ( think californian evolutionary computer systems) .. given time .. which would be the boss? The crew ? Or the head navigater, who is a advanced computer/ flying machine...

 

[Maromi]

I heard in China they have a supercomputer that's smarter than a human being. Reportedly, I also read a year ago that the director of the pentagon or something quit because of all of the Chinese AI.

 

[Jbo]

I think a lot of animals are like that. I know all three cats I've had have some level of human consciousness.

I keep saying basically the only one that separates us from animals is language. From language to developed everything else that makes us human & not animal

Right on! They also have a better sixth sense than we do. My cat is like my child.
I would also add animals are far more advanced than humans in terms of unconditional love.

 

[Kittyinpink]

I heard in China they have a supercomputer that's smarter than a human being. Reportedly, I also read a year ago that the director of the pentagon or something quit because of all of the Chinese AI.

In America, specifically california, they have self evolving computers running constantly. (According to Carl zimmer , author of "evolution " ) its amazing stuff!!

 

[Sapphyre]

Yes I believe sentience exists in the universe. Even if all my beliefs are wrong, the fact that I can have a belief is proof enough for me that I am a sentient creature.

I did promise this was an enlightening puzzle... We were recently discussing knowledge that does not depend on evidence nor on belief; perhaps the experiencing of sentient awareness is a candidate for a starting point ?

I have no way of knowing if anything else in the universe is sentient, but I'm open to the possibility that the universe, itself, is what we would call "sentient".

Supposing that sentient experience is known to be a feature of reality, can you be sure that it is even meaningful to ask whether or not sentience is locally present in some given thing?

The trouble with sentient experience, as you've noted, is that it is only directly measurable to one observer, the experiencer. It is not directly measurable to any other outside observer, which means by definition it is not objectively measurable. As mentioned earlier, Einstein and many other thinkers tend to equate "what is objectively measurable" with "what is real". Surely, it seems fair to equate "what is objectively measurable" with "what is part of objective reality". Neither the presence nor the absence of sentient experience in a given body is objectively measurable... and this implies sentient experience (or lack thereof) in a given body is not objectively real.

What do you think?

 

[Drifter]

I did promise this was an enlightening puzzle... We were recently discussing knowledge that does not depend on evidence nor on belief; perhaps the experiencing of sentient awareness is a candidate for a starting point ?

Starting point for what? An objective discussion on something that may not be objectively real? I feel like we are going around in circles. ...

Neither the presence nor the absence of sentient experience in a given body is objectively measurable... and this implies sentient experience (or lack thereof) in a given body is not objectively real.

 

[Kittyinpink]

Starting point for what? An objective discussion on something that may not be objectively real? I feel like we are going around in circles. ...

Hehehe! I love this!!! .. I want this "discussion ' to last forever!! .. can I add another question to the original? To make this last longer?

 

[Kittyinpink]

Sooo... evolution... our dna is amazing! I am taking female hormones to counter my yukky boy hormones, and my hair has changed.. I used to have my grandads curls at the back , now I have my greatgrandmothers wavy hair ! I think dna sequence is sometimes triggered by hormonal influences, actually "waking up" unused but stored information in our dna.. I would imagine that our rubbish memory is a direct result of survival.. we need accurate memory of food areas and predators.. we need to quickly adapt those memories because predators migrate, so do our food sources due to seasonal changes and we often use nomadic style of life , which , even going in slow circles is good for disease prevention and finding new food sources and avoiding over population of our predators.. so moving about and remembering basic stuff , but quickly changing the information stored in our brains allows us to adapt quickly, invent new technologies and let go of old ideas ... thus progecting us forward to new survival methods....

 

[Sapphyre]

Starting point for what? An objective discussion on something that may not be objectively real? I feel like we are going around in circles. ...

Why, do you see a paradox looming somewhere?

I love when I see a paradox, it's almost like finding a nugget of gold... a paradox is immutable evidence of ideas colliding with each other, and demonstrates that they can't all be right.

Unraveling a paradox often reveals hidden assumptions that are central elements of the contradiction, and in this way, can be very enlightening.

What is meant by "real" ? If the label "real" denotes what is (at least potentially) objectively verifiable, then neither sentient experience in a given body nor absence of sentient experience in a given body can qualify as being "real". On the other hand, if the label "real" denotes an understanding of the causes and conditions of your experience of sentient awareness, then logically said sentient experience must itself be "real" by definition.

Hmmm...

A further question to ponder: How do you understand the sentient awareness that you experience to be localized? Is it in the physical connections between neurons in your brain? Or in the patterns of electrical activity coursing through those neurons? Or in the EM field surrounding them? Where is it located, exactly ?

 

[Drifter]

I love when I see a paradox, it's almost like finding a nugget of gold... a paradox is immutable evidence of ideas colliding with each other, and demonstrates that they can't all be right.

Maybe the real paradox is that all of them actually are right.

A further question to ponder: How do you understand the sentient awareness that you experience to be localized? Is it in the physical connections between neurons in your brain? Or in the patterns of electrical activity coursing through those neurons? Or in the EM field surrounding them? Where is it located, exactly ?

I see no reason to believe my sentient awareness is localized anywhere. I may merely be an instance of some universal awareness that is localized everywhere or nowhere.

 

[Drifter]

I think dna sequence is sometimes triggered by hormonal influences, actually "waking up" unused but stored information in our dna..

The relatively new field of scientific study called "epigenetics" would agree. And it's not just hormones. It's all kinds of environmental influences that may affect how the genes in our DNA are expressed.

 

[Kittyinpink]

The relatively new field of scientific study called "epigenetics" would agree. And it's not just hormones. It's all kinds of environmental influences that may affect how the genes in our DNA are expressed.

That's so cool! I vaugley remember a study in the early 1900 s . Scientists found that people born in a time of famine had different dna sequence activated due to less nutrients in there mums body as they developed.. not just symptoms of malnutrition, but actually different development than expected. It seems that our dna code is constantly being activated by external events, and we are not one basic animal according to our coding , but we can change and "evolve" in our own life times by other codes being activated for whatever reasons... this stuff is fascinating. Perhaps in ancient times , we "hyper evolved " in ice age or other really demanding environments...